Anchorage School Board

Performance measures

Anchorage School District Performance Measures

In the spring of 2011, the Anchorage School Board began creat­ing a vision to create a high performing school district. This document is part of whole picture, including district visioning, strategic initiatives and annual board projects.

High-performing organizations measure their progress towards fulfilling their mission by setting forth measurements and target outcomes or goals. To ensure the district is on-track to meet the board's commitment to the community, based on our core beliefs and commitments, the board will set goals each year for the following three years.

The board expects refinement of measures over time. We will look at the three-year goals annually, adding a new third year and making other changes and updates. It is the board's hope these measurements and their refinement will be consistent over time to focus the district and board towards high performance.

In each table, the year indicates the calendar year in which the school year ends. For example, 2010 is the 2009-10 school year. The methodology for each performance measure can be found below.

1. Performance Area: Academic Achievement

1 A. – One year or greater growth in reading and mathematics – 2012-13 measurement

Aspiration: 100 percent of students will show one year or greater growth in reading and mathematics (coming with the implementation of Response to Instruction).

1. B – Increase Proficiency

Aspiration: 100 percent of students will score proficient on the Standard Based Assessments (SBAs) in reading, writing, mathematics and science.

Percentage of Students Proficient on the SBAs

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Reading

81.7

85.3

84.3

81

83.2

79.8

83

87

90

Writing

78.8

78.5

77.4

78.3

76.5

76.9

80

82

85

Mathematics

70.6

75.8

73.3

70.6

73

70.4

73

75

78

Science

55

57

59.4

59.4

63

65

70

Methodology: Percentage of tested students proficient on the SBAs in reading, writing, mathematics, and science

1. C – Decrease Any Drops in Proficiency Level

Aspiration: Zero percent of students will drop in their proficiency level. Note: we cannot include science because SBAs do not test two consecutive years.

Percentage of Students Dropping a Proficiency Level on SBAs

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Reading

13.28

10.27

16.31

20.18

13.13

21.29

16

13

10

Writing

15.61

17.08

19.07

17.27

18.09

17.6

15

13

10

Mathematics

17.52

14.11

22.38

23.62

16.03

23.1

20

15

10

Methodology: Percentage of students who dropped one or more proficiency level(s) in reading, writing, or mathematics from the prior year.

2. A – No achievement gap between EDS and non-EDS students.

Aspiration: There will be no achievement gap between EDS and non-EDS students in reading, writing, mathematics and science.

Percentage point gap between EDS and non-EDS students

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Reading

20.86

16.76

18.96

21.65

18.72

21.83

18

15

12

Writing

21.73

21.96

23.65

22.79

22.61

22.96

18

15

12

Mathematics

21.84

20.84

22.04

23.21

21.73

23.91

20

16

12

Science

32.22

35.08

33.6

36.78

33

30

25

1 EDS students are 185 percent poverty or below, receive temporary assistance, are in provision schools, are migrant students, and/or are enrolled in McLaughlin, AVAIL, Child in Transition program, or Whaley (excluding ACE/ACT).

Methodology: The percentage point gap on the SBAs between economically disadvantaged students and non-economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-10.

2.B – All schools will have a five-percentage point or fewer gap between EDS students and non-EDS students

Aspiration: No school will have an achievement gap between EDS students and non-EDS students in reading, writing, mathematics and science.

Percentage of Schools with an Achievement Gap of less than 5 Percentage Points

Gap at or below 5 percentage points

Percent of Schools with =<5 percentage points gap

Percent of Schools with =<5 percentage points gap

Goals

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Reading

17.86

15.00

18

23

30

Writing

17.86

7.50

18

23

30

Mathematics

14.29

10.00

18

23

30

Science

14.29

12.50

18

23

30

Methodology: Percentage of schools with an achievement gap on the SBAs at or below five percentage points in reading, writing, mathematics, or science in combined grades 3-10 that are served in the school.

3. Performance Area: Graduation Rates

Aspiration: 100 percent of students graduate high school within four years.

On-time and Five-year Graduation Rates

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

4 years

62.21

63.02

64.26

70.01

69.71/71.04*

72.14*

75

77

80

5 years

Not calculated

75.50*

78

82

85

*In 2011 the state methodology for calculating rates changed

Methodology: All students in the cohort (e.g., group) population who receive a regular diploma in fours years or less divided by the starting cohort (four years prior) plus students who transfer in, minus students who transfer out, emigrate, or die during the four cohort years.

Previous to 2010, the methodology was the following: The numerator is the sum of graduates in the current school year receiving a regular diploma by June 30, including the number of graduates receiving a diploma in the summer of the previous year on or after July1. The denominator is the sum of the number of graduates in the numerator, plus the number of unduplicated dropouts in grade nine three school years prior, plus the number of unduplicated dropouts in grade ten two school years prior, plus the number of unduplicated dropouts in grade eleven one year prior, plus the number of unduplicated dropouts in grade twelve during the current school year, plus the number of certificate of achievements and continuing grade twelve students.

4. Annual Drop Out Rate

Aspiration: No student drops out of school.

Annual Drop Out Rate, Grades 7-12

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

6.3

5.1

3.93

3.4

3.59

4.27

4

3.75

3.4

Methodology: Computed by taking the number of dropouts in the school year from July 1-June 30 and dividing it by the number of students enrolled in grades 7-12 on October 1. Drop outs include those students who leave the district for non diploma programs (e.g., home schools that is not associated with a district, Military Youth Academy if they do not return to a district.

5. Performance Area: Absenteeism

Aspiration: All students will be in school or attending school-sponsored events 95 percent or greater of the time, which means only missing the equivalent of 8.6 days of school.

Percentage of Students in Attendance 95 percent or greater of the time

Actuals

Goals

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

K

45.62

45.77

65

70

75

Grade 1

51.76

50.39

65

70

75

Grade 2

54.53

53.24

65

70

75

Grade 3

58.28

56.21

65

70

75

Grade 4

58.91

58.48

65

70

75

Grade 5

57.39

57.71

65

70

75

Grade 6

56.15

55.49

65

70

75

Grade 7

42.32

50.08

60

70

75

Grade 8

38.34

43.64

60

70

75

Grade 9

40.89

48.89

60

70

75

Grade 10

34.69

42

50

65

75

Grade 11

30.75

35.8

50

65

75

Grade 12

26.53

30.64

50

65

75

Methodology: Of the total number of students enrolled at each grade level, the percentage of students who attended school 95 percent or greater of the days enrolled. A student is considered present only if physically present at the school or engaged in a school activity on or off site. The attendance codes that count as present are: present, field trip, tardy, and tardy excused.

The board and district know this goal must a community effort. There are many reasons why students may be absent from school; that said, we must have students in school if we are going to be a high performing district.

6. Performance Area: Parent Recommendation – 2012–13 measurement

Aspiration:100 percent of parents will recommend their child's school to others.

This will be a new parent survey question in 2011-12.

Methodology: Percentage of parents who turn in survey that score their child’s school a 4 or 5 on the following question: “I would recommend my child’s school to others.”

7. Performance Area: School Safety

7.A Student Safety

Aspiration: 100 percent of students will feel safe in school.

Percentage of Students Surveyed Feeling Safe in Schools

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

51.42

57.1

57.4

61.61

62.66

70.32

73

77

80

7.B School Staff Safety

Aspiration: 100 percent of school employees will feel safe in school.

Percentage of School Staff Surveyed Feeling Safe at their School

Actuals

Goals

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

87.51

87.75

87.5

90.51

89.79

91.6

93

94

95

Methodology: Percentage of students or staff who turn in survey that score a 4 or 5 or higher on the following statement: “I feel safe at school.” Students in grades 5-12 are currently surveyed on this statement. It will be added to the grade 3-4 survey in 2011-12.

8. Performance Area: Operational Efficiency

Aspiration: ASD will rate in the top 25 percent of urban schools (CGCS) in all Key Performance Indicators.

Percent of indicators per quartile

Actuals

Goals

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Top Quartile

Data not available

17

15

14

18

20

23

Second Quartile

Data not available

34

28

29

31

34

36

Third Quartile

Data not available

21

24

28

21

19

17

Bottom Quartile

Data not available

28

33

29

30

27

24

Data lags two years.

Methodology: Data is based on performance indicators set by the Council of Great City Schools performance measurement project. The percentile ranking compares the district to other large districts in the areas of finance, human resources, information technology, and business operations specifically using the Power Indicators and Essential Few performance indicators. Survey results are listed by the year data is reported which is two years after district reporting period ends e.g., the 2010 report is based on information from the 2008-09 fiscal year. The board and the district know that the Council is refining their measurements, but we believe their work is in the right direction and we should use it as a performance measure.